Final Solution: alarmist wants sceptics to gas themselves

Jill Singer - charming

Offensive on so very many levels, but I guess it’s what we should expect from alarmists with no arguments left:

I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.

You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing.

On second thoughts, maybe you should be tattooed first, then gassed. All we need now are the sceptic death camps and we’d have a fully fledged Final Solution on our hands. Is that maybe what’s being suggested?

Read it here.

See here for information about the real dangers of carbon monoxide, which kills many people as a result of faulty gas heaters…

(h/t Bolta)


  1. Maybe all the alarmists should go and live in a carbon free bubble somewhere and see how long it takes to starve to death without carbon dioxide to feed the plants. Bob Brown wants a carbon free world, he can try it first!

  2. Jonathan says:

    Or… they could stop breathing out the gas that they insist is a poison. That would solve a lot of problems!

  3. Bruce in Denver says:

    Perhaps Jill Singer should change her last name to “Sanger” to be more in tune with the eugenics she supports!

  4. Baldrick says:

    Being a climate change denier is tantamount to being a holocaust denier. If only Jill Singer could see the irony in her statement … she wants to gas non-believers!!! Perhaps we should also be tattooed … oh wait, they’ve already suggested that too. What’s next – being forced to wear green triangles sewn onto our clothes? Perhaps all non-believers could be sent to the killing fields in Cambodia for indoctrination, the gulags in Siberia or maybe used as human shields by the Taliban.
    Charming stuff from the looney left!

  5. A Carbon free world huh!? We are carbon based organisms. Carbohydrates – carbon, hydrogen and oxygen: Protein – carbon, hydgrogen, oxygen, nitrogen: Fats – Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen: DNA – carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus, with carbon being the backbone of each compound.
    Chemically there is a huge difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide and the reference to tattooing before gassing is highly offensive – not that it would trouble the Greens. They are anti-semetic

  6. Note that the article got 20 comments fairly quickly (19 sceptic, 1 warmist) but no new comments have been accepted for the last 4 hours. I don’t think the paper likes the reaction she is getting.

  7. I don’t really think its that bad. You’ve got to remember that a high concentration of CO2 to these people is 400ppm. Pretty scary stuff…

    CO is a bit far though.

  8. I offered to take Jill up on her challenge in the comments of her piece. 1 condition was that she had to stand in a similar box to me and as she doubled my CO2 concentration I would double her O2 or N2 concentration. They are both colourless and odourless gasses so it should be interesting. First one to die loses.

  9. Possibly Ms Jill Singer would like to volunteer for the experiment of placing a large plastic bag over her head, sealed at the neck and drown in her own CO2 pollution.
    Also maybe it should be reinforced that the alarmists too are carbon based lifeforms that consume carbon based foods, and exhale around a kilogram of CO2 per day, at an “alarming” rate of 40,000ppmv.
    The alarmists should require a licence to breath and pay a carbon tax for the privilege – say $100 a tonne. Just as a token of their genuine belief that CO2 is a “pollutant.”
    Then again, they may be the “aliens amongst us”, a silicon based life form.
    /sarc off

  10. Confusious says:

    Such utterances clearly document how the Brown Bob’s & Gillard’s Marxist Feminists Brigade is progressively morphing into Nazis. They are already Anti-Semitic and now their suggestions of Gas Chambers and Tattooing of anyone daring to question their pagan dogma just proves the point.

  11. Andy G55 says:

    I would willingly exist in an environment of even 10 times the current CO2 level. There wouldn’t be any noticable difference, except the world would be MUCH greener and more abundant.

    • NASA found that at ~8000ppm CO2 space flights should be no more than a few days – not because it is directly toxic but because it interferes with our lungs ability to exchange waste products – CO2 – to the atmosphere.

      It is interesting that our physiology is not geared up to realise the air we breathe is running low on oxygen but is primed to alert us to our inability to remove CO2 from our blood – it’s why we puff when we exercise – we need to get rid of CO2.

      Off topic but interesting.

  12. Of all the alarmist responses and arguments, this ‘bag of carbon dioxide over your head’ is certainly the strangest and weakest argument. Essentially they are saying that going from 380 ppm to 500-600 ppm will cause the end of the earth. I’m happy to sit in a room of 600 ppm co2. In fact I probably already am. They are calling any co2 not emitted from ‘natural sources’ pollution. They even consider feral camels pollution emitters, just because ‘nature’ didn’t originally put them in the Ausrtalian desert. The whole argument is just plain weird. Humans are part of nature -not separate from it. Yes, we have the ability to influence the landscape and the atmosphere, but really only in very limited and insignificant ways. An unattended highway or building disappears in the space of a single human lifetime – entire civilisations disappear in a few centuries of neglect.

    It’s a strange new meme emerging – you’re branded a ‘climate denier’ if you don’t ‘believe the science’. This very us vs them attitude is without comparison in the modern age, it seems far more vitriolic than even the Iraq or Vietnam wars generated because it goes deep down to a religious belief system rather than just a policy position. The most fervent opponents of the war could at least understand where the other ‘side’ was coming from, and what their arguments were.

  13. i’d give it a go providing i had a few leafy house plants with me

  14. @ Confusious
    What is left out there, is that PM Gillard is a member of Emily’s List.
    The stated aim of Emily’s List is to raise money to help “progressive”, i.e., pro-abortion, women get elected to parliament.

    “Emily” stands for Early Money Is Like Yeast. (News Weekly, September 1, 2007).

    Joan Kirner, whom Ms Gillard has described as a mentor and friend, was one of the driving forces behind the passage of Victoria’s notorious 2008 abortion laws, which not only decriminalised abortion, but legalised late-term abortions right through nine months of pregnancy.

  15. What is left to say? You are obviously not allowed to question or debate the science. They just want to gag those who question the science, and will not debate with any one who wants to challenge them. It seems to be getting harder to get the truth out there but we must press on.

  16. Well, I for one think that what sassy sister Jill said was wonderful. I expressed similar thoughts late last year on my blog. So it’s really affirming to see someone in the mainstream press (and working within Murdoch’s hate media, of all places!) saying what really needs to be said.

    Quite frankly the time for debate is well and truly over. Those who still question the science and demand the removal of the carbon tax will be causing the deaths of millions of people who are yet to be born.

    We, the planet lovers are fighting for global liberation against the totalitarian denialists. Jill Singer is not a fascist. History (and herstory) will judge her kindly. Ultimately, she will be seen as a contemporary Winston Churchill who helped liberate us from the Hitlerian Andrew Bolt.

    Jill Singer, yougogirl!

    • Then you are as twisted as she is. You are not welcome here.

      • The Loaded Dog says:

        The smell of parody is in the air.

        Derek’s a good friend of Alene Composta. Aren’t you Dezza?

        Done much yoghurt knitting lately Dez? The planet needs more people like you!!

        • Yes I am a friend of Alene’s. And I continue to converse with her spirit. (She is still not at peace BTW. She is still angry at the way right-wingers so cruelly mocked her!)

          And no, I haven’t knitted any yoghurt lately. I don’t use stolen animal products and prefer to use soy milk instead. But thanks for asking.

        • derek , the fact that you are communicating with evil angels disguising themselves as your dearly departed shows us that you may be unbalanced ,,, please go & get yourself a dose of reality

        • I think we’ve all been had… 😉

    • “…causing the deaths of millions of people who are yet to be born.”

      I’ll bet that this gal is a pro-abort “feminist” If in fact she’s not just pulling our leg with this comment.

  17. How ridiculous! Even OXYGEN at high enough concentrations is lethal to human/animal life, and, as most people should know, it can catch fire – one hell of a fire!

    • One small correction. I don’t believe oxygen burns by itself. But it is needed to support combustion.

    • Case in point, the Apollo 1 fire in 1967, a pure oxygen environment and a single spark, started a fire that caused the death of three astronauts .

      • “Fire and explosion hazards exist when concentrated oxidants and fuel are brought into close proximity; however, an ignition event, such as heat or a spark, is needed to trigger combustion. Oxygen itself is not the fuel, but the oxidant.”
        “The fire that killed the Apollo 1 crew in a launch pad test spread so rapidly because the capsule was pressurized with O2 but at slightly more than atmospheric pressure, instead of the 1/3 normal pressure that would be used on a mission.”
        Source: Wikipedia/oxygen.

  18. Re : the tattooing suggestion , i just googled it & they actually said it ! creepy stuff when you need to resort to that sort of fascist state action to keep your point of view .
    what a real bunch of peace loving greenies they are , bring it on i say , tattoo away – i’ll be proud to be first so i can show my grandkids what the cranks did to us peaceful lot who didn’t agree with their totalitarian program , lol

  19. Confusious says:

    One needs only to follow closely Brown Bob’s utterances. I suspect if you give him a slight rub and Red Marxist will emerge….

  20. Baldrick says:

    Bias reporting is alive and well at your ALPBC. You won’t find any mention of this story Simon posted about Jill Singer on the ALPBC website, that climate change deniers gas themselves, but you will find the following story on the ALPBC website about Lord Monckton comparing Garnaut to Hitler ….
    Amazing hypocrisy!

  21. There is good reason why warmists refuse to conform to the courtesies of traditional science to share their data and methods with the general scientific communities or to comply with FOIA requests from others to review their data and methods. Basically, their data manipulation and methods cannot survive in the transparency of full disclosure.

    Consider this. If the warmists’ science was so slam dunk solid, don’t you think they would be the first to lay all of their data and methods out on the table for all to see and challenge anyone to prove them wrong?

    Instead they fight desparately to prevent others (except like-minded advocates) from confirming their results.

    One of the most basic principles of science is that other scientists can repeat the findings using the same raw data. From Michael Mann to the CRU to every other AGW propganda factory they have fought like deamonds possessed to prevent any independent review of their data or findings. In fact, the CRU even discarded the original temperarture data so it’s impossible to verify any of their results. Cherry picking of data by AGW alarmists appears to be rampant.

    And there is one other curious aspect to this debate. If you go all the way back to the first claims of doom and gloom, such as the first Earth Day, not a single dire predictions made by the warmists, the CRU, the UN’s IPCC, or any other warmists individual or organizations has come anywhere close to matching reality. They have been forced to use non-peer reviewed enviromentalist hysterira as scientific proof. They even knowingly lied in the last IPCC report about glacier melt, reasoning that even though it wasn’t true it was more important to use the shocking predictions to force governments to act.

    Sea levels rising? No. Global warming? Inconclusive or insignificant. Glaciers melting? No. Food production cut in half in Africa? No. Reduction of rain forests due to AGW? Not happening. Polar bears disappearing? Populations are increasing. Arctic melt? Not happening. Antarctica melting? Nope, ice mass is increasing. And so it goes. If you list every dire prediction made by warmists and the time frames they’ve expressed, you will find that they have been right zero times.

    The IPCC was supposed to have been the gold standard to prove AGW. But it turns out that it is so riddled with errors, unsupportable assumptions, non-scientific propaganda, political agendas, and erroneous predictions that those reports are now considered no more that good examples of junk science. The IPCC has no credibility except with the extreme enviromentalists who care more about their agendas than the science.

    We have reached the point where warmists are claiming every thunderstorm or bright sunny day is proof of climate change. It matters not that one day they predict that are children will not know what snow is and the next they want us to believe that record snow falls are exactly what they predicted. Which is it–no snow or record accumulations of snow? They tell us that an over-heated Earth will result in massive droughts, but when we experience record rain fall and flooding, it is of course what they predicted all along. Which is it–droughts or floods? These people are all over the map and everything and anything becomes proof of AGW climate change.

    Don’t you find it interesting that their claims of AGW are always based on current weather phenomena that their models never predicted. And they expect to be taken seriously?

    If AGW is a undeniable scientific fact that will produce all of the hysterical predictions that come from the warmists, then why all of the lies, deceit, covert data manipulation, secret methods, cherry picked proxies, discredited reports, fear of transparency, efforts to prevent studies critical of AGW from being published, efforts to prevent studies critical of AGW from being peer-reviewed, efforts to fight FOIAs, and demands that critics be tattooed, imprisoned, and gassed? Why is that?

    On the other hand, there are almost no such efforts on the part of the skeptics. They publish their data, formulas, methods, and how they came to their conclusions on the Internet and ask others to verify their results. For some reason, the skeptics have no fear of transparency. For some reason, the skeptics are not fighting legal battles to avoid releasing their data. For some reason, skeptics have been successful in putting into serious doubt every significant claim of doom predicted by the warmists. For some reason, skeptics are not trying to block warmists publications. For some reason, skeptics are not demanding warmists be tattooed and gassed. Why is that?

  22. dribble says:

    Poor Derek. There is nothing anybody can do to stop the worldwide amount of CO2 increasing. Euro and Aussie fruitloops included. Nature is going to prove the ‘science’ right or wrong in its own good time. Sit back and enjoy the ride.

  23. So, if I was to compare, say, the letters that our Canberra climate scientists got, saying that some loony wished they were dead, then is this not a public death threat (according to the media) directed at a lot of people who choose not to share Jills view?

    Quality journalism eh? Gone the way of the Dodo… (poor example perhaps?)

  24. Beautiful, Charming, Wise , Articulate , Courageous and highly intelligent are all accurate descriptions of Jill Singer..

    • usually i would agree with you , not this time ,,,,,,

    • She may be all of those things. But this screed shows she can also be ignorant, or mis-informed, or an opportunist.

  25. pyeatte says:

    It is truly amazing at the ignorance of the warmists. It is as if they have no clue about photosynthesis and how it works or the combustion of methane and how it relates to photosynthesis. The simple fact that CO2 is plant food and that commercial greenhouses routinely increase CO2 concentrations to 1000ppm to increase growth rate escapes them. Perhaps Jill is just joking and is having a little fun. If not, she is a good example of how a pretty girl can be the face of a monster.

  26. Well Jill, what can I say, WOW!, your proposal that all climate sceptics test their theory by gassing ourselves, OMG, where the hell did you get that idea from, are you sure your name isn’t Jill Hitler or Adolf Singer?. I am surprised that the Herald Sun allows you to continue to write for them after making that sort of suggestion. Get a life!!!!! we definitely do without people like you in the media.

  27. Ms Singer has made these comments after the Monckton analogy.
    Monckton was not helpful but I do believe it has been off the back of the disgusting abuse and discrimination he receives and to my knowledge does not complain about.
    The media “alarmists” such as Ms Singer, Tony Jones (Lateline), Peter Lewis (Essential Media) and Paul Howes who are so hypocritical that it beggars believe. They all have no qualms to slander and denegrate ANYBODY who has doubts about Global Warming.I know and have witnessed first hand two disgusting personal abuse scenarios directed at Monckton’s facial appearance. I sent written complaints to the media organisation in both cases and request replies as to was this condoned by their station.
    Alas, nothing resulted to what I thought was discrimatory.
    It follows that the highlighting of abuse on the ABC has failed to address it is occurring both ways!

  28. Sydney Rooster says:

    No wonder we call them eco-fascists!

  29. Who is threatening some of this countries leading climate change scientists with death threats? I ask again, who is really threatening anyone with death in this debate, seriously? its YOU lot 🙂
    Back to your nonsense kiddies, science isnt your strong point.

  30. Graham Richards says:

    So who’s the real Nazi then???

  31. I think both sides need to taKe a deep breath, calm down and take a good look at themselves. For me the whole Carbon Tax debate is not about CLimate Change (AGW or natural) but about cost-benefit. The cost to the Australian people and business has to ‘hurt’ to be effective – hence there is going to be a huge cost to the economy. As for compensation (at least 50% of the tax revenue it to go to compensation is what I read), that will simply negate the effect on the lower income earners and the higher income earners can still afford to pay, so no nett effect, simply income redistribution. The benefit – negligible – either because it won’t change our behaviour because of the reasons above, and/or we only produce 1.28% (2007) of global emissions and the target is to reduce this by 5%. Any statistician will tell you that 5% is statistically insignificant, and irrespective of that any reductions in CO2 emissions will come about due to increased costs across our economy which will result in businesses closing, or moving offshore where they will produce the same (if not more) CO2.

  32. Let such Greenie extremists keep putting their foot in mouth, showing us their Freudian slips.

    Most mutters don’t reveal themselves until they are running the asylum, but tHis lot haven’t the discipline if thought. Their arrogance will be their undoing.

    Just hope it doesn’t have to go as far as it did in countless times before, for this new authoritarianism to be seen for what it is.

  33. I always wonder why warmists have to resort to commando tactics to assert their arguments. Aren’t the facts enough? By the way, what facts?
    There will always be an equilibrium in this world. increasing CO2 levels promote plant growth. The proportion of Co2 in the atmosphere is ridiculously low and could increase without any harm.
    Have you ever considered the sun as a possible factor?
    Why this intolerance to those who demand proof?
    This seems to be a modern version of the Inquisition. Very similar.
    I guess it will be silenced by the coming mini ice age.


  1. […] alarmist wants sceptics to gas themselves […]

  2. […] Final Solution?! Columnist Jill Singer urges global warming skeptics to silence themselves by inhal… — Jill Singer cheers potential death of skeptics by carbon monoxide because their ‘anti-science nonsense’ would not ‘be heard of again. How very refreshing’ […]

%d bloggers like this: